It`s a busy morning, full of news here. We have an exclusive report to bring to you later this morning on where the Chris Christie investigation is headed next. You`re going to want to stick around for that later this morning. But we begin with the crisis in Ukraine and President Obama`s 90-minute phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin late yesterday. In that conversation President Obama told President Putin that the U.S. may have to boycott the upcoming G-8 summit in Russia and threatened further action if Russia does not withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory of Crimea. We`ll go to the White House for the latest on that in just a moment. First, some more on the events that have been moving at breakneck speed in Ukraine this weekend as indicated by the substance of that phone call.

Russian forces have been taking over Crimea apparently without firing a single shot. Without even appearing to be Russian forces, for that matter. Long lines of tanks and trucks and soldiers wearing uniforms without any identifying marks moving into critical areas of the southern Ukraine territory of Crimea, a section of the former soviet republic that juts out into the Black Sea, which makes it strategically very important. The acting president of Ukraine went on television Friday to announce that under the guise of military exercises Russian 98troops had entered Crimea. He said they captured the local parliament building and the regional government headquarters and communication hubs and the airports, which they promptly shut down. The new reports of planes carrying thousands of Russian troops landing throughout the night. Soldiers have since been seen digging trenches along the Crimean border with the rest of Ukraine. And this isn`t the first time in recent history that Russia has done something like this. In 2008 Russia sent troops into two breakaway regions in the former soviet republic of Georgia. They started a war with Georgia over control of those two places. Five-day conflict that Russia won. Russia then recognized those two regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations. Their governments now enjoy close relationships with Moscow, even if the United Nations and most other countries still consider them part of Georgia.

So that`s the fear for Crimea today that Russia might be trying to provoke another conflict now. They could be trying to get the new less friendly with Russia leadership that`s in charge of Ukraine in the wake of the fall of the Russian-aligned government. That they might be trying to get them to go to war over Crimea or if Ukraine doesn`t fight back that Russia could essentially keep the peninsula and the Black Sea where it already has a naval base, or the population tends to identify more with Russia than Ukraine anyway. It could make for a good base of operations from which to plot its next move and maybe take over more of the heavily Russian-speaking areas of eastern Ukraine. On Friday, the day before his phone call with Putin, President Obama reacted in what was described as hastily arranged remarks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We are now deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian federation inside of Ukraine. Russia has a historic relationship with Ukraine including cultural and economic ties and a military facility in Crimea. But any violation of Ukraine`s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: On Saturday in response to those remarks Russia threatened to send the U.S. ambassador home from Moscow. And Russia`s parliament granted President Vladimir Putin permission to use the Russian military in Ukraine. What would have seemed to have been a retroactive rubber stamp? And with permission granted, what`s to stop Russia from deploying the troops seemed to have gathered in Ukraine - in the Crimea to other parts of Ukraine. Would the U.S. try to stop Putin? Is there really an appetite for the U.S. to stop him more than 20 years after the end of the Cold war? And more to the point, is the outraged rhetoric from Obama and other American Western leaders only emboldening Putin? Reports on Saturday indicated that the debate in Russia`s parliament was marked by angry reactions to Obama`s statement. And "The New York Times" report from Crimea described demonstrators welcoming the Russian incursion with signs saying "Free Ukraine from U.S. Occupation," and "The USA works with fascism."

The question of what, if anything, the United States can and should do also hovers over the news this week out of Uganda where after years of flirting with the idea the Ugandan government finally implemented a measure that not only makes it illegal to be gay in Uganda, it imposes harsh penalties for homosexuality including life in prison. As for criminalizing homosexual propaganda, something Uganda and Russia seem to have in common. Earlier versions of the Ugandan legislation called for the death penalty as the sentence for some gay acts. Final version of that bill left out capital punishment, but pretty much everything else was signed into law.

And the instinct in America and much of the West, of course, when hearing about such a draconian law is to ask what are we going to do about it? We can condemn it. We can threaten to cut off aid and we can actually cut off aid. At least three European countries this week already have withdrawn millions of dollars of aid from Uganda, a country, which depends on foreign support for about 20 percent of its budget, that`s one-fifth of its entire budget. And the World Bank announced on Thursday that it would be delaying $90 million in loans to Uganda. So, it`s already clear that Uganda is going to pay a severe financial penalty. But it may not be that simple. The $500 million that the U.S. gives to Uganda, the vast majority of it goes to public health projects like fighting HIV and AIDS. So, who would pay the price if that funding is revoked? The government officials who pass the anti-gay bill or the people who have AIDS? The U.S. is also have been helping to fund the Ugandan troops that make up the bulk of the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia, is leading the fight against an al Qaeda group.

But beyond that if you listen to the leadership in Uganda what seems to be driving this is resentment of the cultural norms of America and the West and what they see as attempts to impose that godless licentious culture on their society and by objecting so loudly and by threatening so much action, is the Western world potentially being counterproductive? Is it simply providing Uganda`s leaders with a populous tool to rally the masses behind harsh laws like the one that was implemented this week? Are our best instincts actually making things worse? Some of the reactions from America and the West also help to fuel Vladimir Putin`s push for the anti-gay law Russia passed last year. He`ll even tell Russians that he was trying to protect their proud and traditional culture from the destructive forces of the West. As we said at the top, there`s reporting that shows that Russia is now leaning on populous resentment of America and the West to stir up support in Crimea and parts of Ukraine for its actions there. Outrage can be empowering not just when you are feeling it, but when you are on the receiving end of it. And it`s certainly hands that outrage can be used as a tool. It`s something to keep in mind as the Obama administration tries to figure out its next steps in both of these situations.

From the White House I want to bring in NBC`s Kristen Welker for the latest - first on the Ukraine situation. Kristen, good morning. We have this readout of the phone call from between President Obama and President Putin yesterday, at least according to the White House where Obama threatened Putin that there could be greater, quote, "greater political and economic isolation for Russia," also said that we would -- the United States would pull out of preparations for the upcoming G-8 summit in Sochi. I`m looking at that, is there anything more the United States is talking about threatening or can threaten here?

KRISTEN WELKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. It`s a really important question, Steve. By the way, that conversation described as tense in part because of what you said President Obama announcing that the U.S. would suspend its participation in those preparatory meetings for the G-8 summit. Vladimir Putin pushing back, defending Russia`s actions. So incredibly tough words during those 90 minutes that were spoken yesterday. So what can the United States actually do? There has been some talk of potential sanctions. Not surprisingly you have some of the more hawkish members of Congress calling on President Obama to take a tougher stance. Senator John McCain, for example, coming out and saying that President Obama needs to do a better job of laying out exactly what the costs will be if Russia continues to escalate its intervention. I`ve been speaking to some foreign policy experts, one telling me that, look, one possible option is to cancel upcoming meetings with Russia`s trade delegations, also possibly to consider forfeiting Russia`s participation in the G-8, that those would be stronger stances to take because what President Obama did by announcing that the U.S. will suspend its participation in these preparatory meetings amounts to essentially a slap on the wrist, but not necessarily an all-out snub. So those are some of the options that are being discussed, Steve. What`s not being discussed is any military action here. It really seems that they`re looking at the policy, the potential economic steps that they can take at this point. Steve?

KORNACKI: All right, Kristen Welker at the White House, thanks for that update. And joining us now here at the table we have Miriam Elder, she`s a foreign editor with "Buzzfeed" who spent time covering Russia, Tommy Vietor is the co-founder of the political consulting from Fenway strategies. He was a former spokesman at the National Security Council under President Obama. Elise Jordan also worked with the NSC as director of communications there under President George W. Bush. She`s now a contributor to "The Daily Beast." And Hayes Brown, reporter covering national security issues for Think Progress. Thanks for joining us. And Miriam, I`ll start with you. Since you know Russia so well, maybe you could just sort of give us some context and some background about what exactly is going on here. You know, the Crimea was sort of transferred, I guess, to the Ukraine in 1954 by then the Soviet Union, there are a lot of Russian speaking people who live there and there are also a lot of Russian speaking people, people who identify more, I think, with Russia in the eastern part of Ukraine. Are we seeing a strategy here by Vladimir Putin to just expand the territory of Russia to include this sort of predominantly Russian speaking areas? Is that what`s going on?

MIRIAM ELDER, BUZZFEED: I think that`s what`s going on and when we see what`s happening in Crimea right now and as you said at the top the most important thing to watch is what`s going to happen in the east of Ukraine. I kind of don`t really think he`s going to stop at Crimea. Putin has this like imperial project, one of the biggest tragedies of the 21 century that he said was the collapse of the Soviet Union and what he`s trying to do is kind of rebuild Russia`s imperial strength. So he`s relying on this very like - not sort of like native idea of what it means to be Russian. So he draws on ethnic ties. He draws on religious ties, and he sort of sees anybody in Russia`s sphere as anybody who has this like super Orthodox and Russian identification.

KORNACKI: And that`s the other interesting thing, too, because I think it`s the relic of the Stalin area that all these people were moved from Russia maybe against their will to parts of the Soviet empire and large Russian-speaking communities, communities sort of loyal to Moscow sprouted up, and now that is sort of becoming the pretense in part for Putin trying to expand the territory, because this declaration he got from parliament yesterday didn`t just say Crimea. It basically gave him carte-blanche for all of Ukraine.

ELDER: Yes, precisely. And that`s why there is a lot of fears growing around the region. You have these sort of communities in Kazakhstan, you have these kind of communities in Latvia. You have these, you know, these Russian-speaking communities all over the former Soviet Union, because everybody was just kind of moved all over the place. So, if he`s allowed to do this, the question then becomes what`s next?

KORNACKI: Well, so, Tommy, what about the prime minister of Ukraine, the current, you know, interim -- whatever you want to call him -- prime minister of Ukraine called this a declaration of war.

TOMMY VIETOR, FMR. SPOKESMAN, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Right.

KORNACKI: Clearly, there are Russian troops on the scene. As far as I know, Ukraine does not have the military might to fight back, full-fledged, you know, Russian incursion. Is there any scenario, under which there`s a military conflict here or can Russia really basically just take what it wants because nobody wants a military conflict with them?

VIETOR: I can`t see any scenario where there is a military conflict that involves U.S. forces. I think what we`re seeing here is Putin lashing out militarily in response to a massive political defeat. He lost a very close ally in Yanukovych when he was essentially deposed and sent from Kiev and now he is sending troops in. I think we need to reject, the United States needs to reject his sort of zero sum look at this that Ukraine must either choose to be Russian or choose to be Western. This is a sovereign nation. They should be able to live how they please and have their sovereignty respected. He obviously broke that. I think the readout you read out earlier was remarkable. I`ve worked on a lot of these during my time at the White House and generally it was trying to figure out ways to say nothing with different words. You know, they talked about issues of mutual concern, whatever. This was direct. This was in Putin`s face. And letting him know that there will be diplomatic consequences like not going to G-8 meeting, maybe kicking them out of the G-8, maybe sanctions, maybe breaking off trade talks. So, you know, there`s very little you can do here militarily. Frankly, I don`t think it`s in the U.S. interests to start a war with Russia, but there will be an international response that I don`t know if it will be effective in the long run, but it will be isolating for Russia.

KORNACKI: What does that mean, Elise, do you think, to somebody like Putin? So, OK, we`re not going to participate in the preparatory meetings for the G-8. Maybe there won`t even be a G-8 this year. Does that mean anything to Putin?

ELISE JORDAN, THE DAILY BEAST: I think it`s a slap on the wrist. I think the problem is that Putin has no fear right now. Because he`s seeing Obama and how Obama handled Syria and the red line and I think he is incredibly empowered. And unfortunately, I think, this shows a lack of foresight in the Obama foreign policy that has, unfortunately, you know, been more of the rule. If you look at how Ambassador Nuland and Ambassador to the Ukraine are talking about power sharing arrangements. It gets leaked on YouTube. And we`re -- but there`s no plan for what happens next. So this happens and you think Putin isn`t going to respond. Like, what is our response?

KORNACKI: But I guess what I wonder and Hayes, I think, back to 2008 and the situation in Georgia and George W. Bush was president, the United States was outraged at this incursion, ultimately it wasn`t something the United States was willing to put any troops on the ground to stop and ultimately, you know, Putin just sort of got his way and life went on. I wonder is there more that the United States can do here?

HAYES BROWN, THINKPROGRESS.ORG: I mean not in terms of military response, like Tommy said. There is really no - I mean even in the time of George W. Bush when we had a much larger defense budget, we couldn`t do anything to stop Russia when it invaded Georgia, so I don`t think there`s much in terms of that. We can do - we could have, like you mentioned, $40 billion worth of trade with Russia last year, so and they want more. Even as latest last December they were trying to negotiate to have not quite a free trade deal, but a much bigger economic tie to the United States. So if we cut off those talks, if we try to as far as we can within the WTO lower our trade with Russia that would send a pretty strong message, but as far as .

JORDAN: So, how far are we going to go there? Are we going to turn Russia into an international pariah? Are we going to cut off visas for all the parliamentarians who voted for this incursion? Like what really are these harsh measures? Because I don`t think that, oh, not going to Sochi G-8, no one even wants to go there anyway.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: We`ve been there. We`ve seen the hotels already.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: But you mentioned possibly taking away visas from the parliamentarians. That is an option on the table. I mean or even as far as putting a travel ban on Putin traveling outside of Russia if the U.S. really wants to send a strong message.

JORDAN: Which would be great.

BROWN: Which would be great. Round up our allies in Europe to do the same thing that would be amazing.

KORNACKI: Well, there are some reasons, maybe, why our allies in Europe would hesitate to take a step like that. We can get into that after this to talk more about what could or should be done given what`s going on in Ukraine right now after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

To talking about this a little bit in the opening, the debate, if you want to call it a debate that took place in the Russian parliament yesterday authorizes a military force, that use of the military in Ukraine. This sort of anti-Western themes that were stressed and the theme you hear this in the Russian media and you heard this in the parliament yesterday, was this idea that the demonstrations that were taking place in Kiev were sort of represented a danger to Russian speaking people. Here`s what a member of parliament saying, "All this is being done under the guise of democracy, as the West says. They tore apart Yugoslavia, rowded (ph) Egypt, Libya, Iraq and so on. All of this under the false guise of peaceful demonstrations, so we must be ready in case they want to unleash the dogs on us. When I hear that kind of rhetoric and then we talk about what, you know, this readout from the United States effort that the Obama phone call yesterday about isolating Russia further, I almost see a leader, Putin, in a country that maybe doesn`t mind being isolated and in a way has some leverage, too, with Europe, not so much the United States, but with Europe when it comes to, like, oil.

ELDER: I think what Putin is led by, he wants to be respected on the world stage. This is something that you`ve seen since like the first day he got into power. He kind of tried it through respect and now - a lot of that we saw like the appeals to the United Nations. That was the only place where Russia really had power, it was on the Security Council. So it wielded its veto as much as it possibly could. It wasn`t really getting the respect that it wanted and now they`re kind of conflating fear and respect. So, I`m not sure that they would revel in the isolation, but I think they are reveling in - you know, being like the center of world news and just having everybody freak out about what on earth they`re doing.

KORNACKI: So where does this -- tell me, where do you think this goes next? I mean it`s the question is would there be a full-scale takeover of Crimea? Would that be, you know, would that become part of Russia, or would it become this - I guess it was going to be an autonomy referendum on the ballot there soon. But it would be - it would be like sort of those republics break, where republic of Georgia loyal to Moscow and maybe parts of eastern Ukraine. Are there other parts of the old Soviet empire that they have their eye on, too?

VIETOR: That`s a great question. That`s clearly what the president was pointing at in this readout of the phone call yesterday. With respect to the rhetoric, I do think this is some things anti-Western, nationalist rhetoric like this, this is something Putin has used since day one to rally his base and get people excited and demagogue the West. And it`s, you know, the playbook of every autocrat from Mubarak to Putin. The challenge for the United States is when, you know, tomorrow we still have to wake up and work with them on Syria, CW, we have to work with them on Iran sanctions, we have to work with them on North Korea, we have to work with them on getting supplies to our troops in Afghanistan. There`s a whole bunch of other issues we need to continue to get progress on, arms control reduction, aside from this. So, that is what makes this so unbelievably complicated. I agree we need a strong response and it might include sanctions and it might include diplomatic isolation, but there`s a limit.

KORNACKI: And could we - so Tommy mentions like Syria and mentions Iran - I mean could we have a productive working relationship with Russia, which is vital to those two questions if we`re then putting sanctions on the table, if we are then taking actions, not military, but taking actions in response to this, you know, sort of poking a stick in Putin`s eye?

BROWN: Well, I mean all the things that we - that you just mentioned are things that are really important to Russia as well. On the things that Russia cares about, they`re willing to be - come to the table, counterterrorism, Iran, nuclear issue, Syria, CW. But on things that they don`t want the U.S. on, that`s when they just do what they want and that`s where we run into trouble. You guys mentioned that prestige is really big in Putin`s mind. That`s why kicking him out of the G-8 would be a pretty serious step. When they got in in the `90s it was a huge boost of recently collapsed Soviet Union/Russia and so kicking him out would show him that these sorts of moves don`t hold the sort of respect that you want Russia to have.

KORNACKI: What`s the threat to the United States, Elise? I mean can we live with, let`s say, there`s sort of a quasi-autonomous Crimea that`s loyal to Moscow and maybe picks off parts of eastern Ukraine that are heavily Russian speaking and that becomes sort of loyal to Moscow and the rest of Ukraine is sort of more aligned with Europe? Is that ultimately a long -term threat to the United States if that`s .

JORDAN: Well, definitely it`s slowing NATO expansion prospects. But I just disagree on how much I think we need Russia right now. I think Syria has really been to Putin`s benefit, to Russia`s benefit, I think to Iran, that, you know, they`re at a point in negotiations where the Iranians have such a vested interest right now that we`re in a much better position than we`ve ever really been -- we`re in such a -- I think we could get more. And if they don`t - If the American delegation doesn`t get more from Iran, that`s going to be a complete shame. But I just don`t see what we`re getting from the Russians these days where it really matters all that much because they`re going to follow their own interests at the end of the day.

KORNACKI: All right. Well, we will switch gears when we get back, to ask a little bit about this with our guest Senator Chris Coons, but also we will talk to Chris Coons about America`s rhetoric in Uganda and how that must be met with action. We`ll pick it up next after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: All right. Joining us from Washington now is Delaware Senator Democrat Chris Coons. He`s chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs. He`s traveled to Uganda and spoken out strongly against that country`s anti-homosexuality bill. Senator, thanks for joining us. I do want to talk about Uganda. But first, I just want to get your reaction to what we are seeing in Ukraine, calls for the United States to do something whether that`s sanctions or, you know, pulling out of the G-8 meeting, what do you think the United States response to the Ukraine should be right now?

SEN. CHRIS COONS, (D) DELAWARE: Well, Steve, we need to remember that this is Russia, not the Soviet Union. They are a shadow of their former selves, and what Putin has been trying to do in recent years is to work his way back into international respectability, as your panel mentioned previously. We`ve just put the finishing touches on the Olympic Games in Sochi. The most expensive winter games in history. And there`s an upcoming G-8 summit at Sochi. I do think that we can and should respond in a thoughtful, forceful, multilateral way to Russian overreach and aggression in the Crimea. I think we should force them to use their veto at the U.N., to veto a Security Council resolution denouncing Russian military adventurism in Crimea and I think we should get our allies to withdraw from the G-8 summit in Sochi and discuss other trade issues or sanctions. But we also have to make sure that our rhetoric isn`t overreaching and isn`t further escalating this crisis. Putin suffered a political defeat when Yanukovych, his ally in leadership in Kiev was literally chased out of town, chased out of the country and he is acting in defense of Russia`s core interests in retaining their naval base in Sevastopol and at defending the Russian minority that is predominantly in Crimea and in southeastern Ukraine.

So, if we work in a thoughtful and measured way with our European allies to push back in ways that Putin will respond to that affect Russian primacy in the region, but don`t over escalate it. I think there is a possibility of our moving forward in a way that allows Ukrainians to resolve what is essentially a Ukrainian political issue.

KORNACKI: All right. And I want to get to Uganda now. We talked about this a little bit at the top of the show, and I wanted to spend more time on this and the developments in Ukraine just kind of made it impossible. But I want to get to it, because it was a big story this week, this anti-homosexuality bill being signed into law in Ukraine and we talked about how a lot of the rhetoric over there is directed sort of anti-American, anti-Western. This is being framed by politicians in the Ukraine as sort of a reaction to the excesses of the West. Here is an example. This is the ethics minister of Uganda reacting to some news this week about how money from Europe might stop flowing into the country. He said, "We will not shy away from this. We want to rid this country of homosexuality, and if that means these people Obama, Hague (ph), you name them, want to stop their aid, then let them. We don`t need it. We will die poor. And we will at least be able to save these gays from damnation. Homosexuality cannot be accommodated in our culture. We have taken that position as a government because this is a democracy, and it is what the people want.

In the face of that attitude and in the face of the obvious populous appeal in Uganda of this kind of a law, I wonder what it is the United States can do here.

COONS: Well, Steve, we do need to be respectful of concerns of the LGBT community in Uganda. When I was there a year ago and met with LGBT activists, at that point, they were asking me not to be too publicly aggressive on their behalf, but we need to hold to account our ally Yoweri Museveni. Museveni has been president of Uganda for decades now. And in recent years he has become increasingly aggressive of journalism and free speech, of political dissenters. This law framed as an anti-Western, pro-Ugandan religious freedom initiative is only the most aggressive of a whole series of laws enacted by countries across the continent -- Nigeria in January of this year, for example. Also a U.S. ally. Also the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars of aid from the United States, enacted a sweeping anti-homosexuality law. But the one in Uganda goes further than I think any other on the continent. It doesn`t just criminalize homosexual activity, that in of itself is unacceptable as a violation of basic human rights, but it makes illegal advocating for LGBT rights, it makes illegal failing to report to the authorities someone who you believe to be homosexual, so this criminalizes free speech and activity related to one`s sexual identity in a way that I think the United States can`t simply stand by and allow this to happen.

KORNACKI: So, senator, what is it we can do when it seems like the threats and it seems like the actual withholding of aid as we`re seeing here is prompting the reaction I just read to you when there`s such strong populous appeal for these politicians in Uganda including the president who didn`t seem a month ago to want to sign this, facing re-elections, seeing the populous appeal to it. Then he goes ahead and he signs it. What leverage does the United States have to stop this?

COONS: Well, Steve, we provide nearly $500 million a year in assistance to Uganda. We are their single largest source of foreign aid. As you mentioned at the top of the show, the World Bank and a number of our Scandinavian allies have put on hold or withdrawn financial support to Uganda already. And foreign assistance makes up nearly 20 percent of their budget. But we have a close security relationship with Uganda as well. We have provided equipment and training to their police and their military, they`ve been valuable and helpful allies for us in the hunt for Joseph Kony and in stabilizing Somalia. They`re part of the peacekeeping force there that is fighting back against Al Shabab. So, we shouldn`t move suddenly or rashly, but I do think as the administration conducts a top-to-bottom review of our aid we should look seriously at reducing assistance or cutting off assistance that`s related to police training. Their police have already been involved in anti-LGBT violence. We should have serious and direct conversations with President Museveni about how this will affect the standing of our relationships.

And I frankly think we need to look at two other regional allies to be our partners in the security challenges that I spoke about before, so that we aren`t overly reliant on Uganda for the actions in Somalia or the actions against Kony. We need to be able to have our actions stand up to our rhetoric. We also need to make it clear through a travel warning for U.S. citizens who are considering traveling to Uganda and through opening up avenues for asylum for Ugandans who seek to leave Uganda now that it`s become such an oppressive environment for the LGBT community. I think it`s also important for us to put on the table the possibility of sanctions or visa denials for those who incite violence against the LGBT community in Uganda. We have a range of things we can do and we need to make sure that our rhetoric is matched by our actions, Steve.

KORNACKI: OK. That`s quite a list here. Let`s see how many of those are actually implemented and followed through in the days ahead. I want to thank Senator Chris Coons of Delaware for joining us today as well as writer and political commentator Elise Jordan, reporter Hayes Brown, Miriam Elder from BuzzFeed.

Republicans are in position to take back the Senate this year potentially, but will members of their own party put a stop to that? That`s ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: Senator Ted Cruz playing a little word association game earlier this week. When Politico`s Mike Allen named a notable political figure, Cruz was asked to respond with one word. So when Mike Allen said Chris Christie, Cruz responded with the word, brash. But then he added some more words, too.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R) TEXAS: Listen, I think the whole Bridgegate thing is nonsense. I think it is an example of the media piling on -- apparently the most important story in the country is there was some traffic in New Jersey.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: Well, that`s one way of looking at it. But if you`ve watched this show lately you know it`s about a little bit more than just some traffic. At the top of the hour, we will have some exclusive information to report to you regarding what`s about to happen to one of Chris Christie`s top political appointees. So stick around. You won`t want to miss it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: This was the week that the Tea Party movement, a conservative uprising that has steered the Republican Party far to the right by engineering a series of shocking primary victories over Republican establishment figures, this is the week that it turned five years old. The question is whether that same upheaval, the upheaval that lifted candidates like Christine O`Donnell and Sharron Angle in the shocking primary victories and it allowed Democrats to win races they otherwise had no business winning, whether that same upheaval will define the Republican Party in this year`s midterms. It`s a critical question since control of the Senate is very much within reach for the GOP this November. But the evidence is conflicting. Take Ted Cruz who won his Senate seat in a Texas Tea Party uprising in 2012 and quickly alienated many of his Republican colleagues in the upper chamber, especially when he used his grassroots appeal to push the party into a politically disastrous government shutdown last fall. In the wake of that debacle Cruz seemed eager to make nice with his colleagues and promised not to intervene in GOP primaries. He promised not to fundraise for the Senate Conservatives Fund, this is the largest and most powerful backer of Tea Party insurgent candidates. This seemed like a big boost for the GOP establishment until this week when Politico reported that Cruz had signed a fundraising letter for something called the Madison Project, a lower profile version of the Senate Conservatives Fund. It`s a political action committee that`s working to defeat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and commit Senators Pat Roberts of Kansas and Thad Cochran of Mississippi in GOP primaries this year. On Thursday, Cruz addressed the story in an interview with Politico`s Mike Allen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE ALLEN, POLITICO: Specifically on the Madison Project, do you have any concerns about helping a group that`s hurting sitting GOP senators?

CRUZ: You know, look, I thought that story, to be honest, was pretty silly. That particular letter was a letter I signed last April. It`s nearly a year old. I didn`t even know the group would send that letter out again.

ALLEN: So, you wouldn`t do it again.

CRUZ: It was a letter I had signed before they had endorsed anyone in primaries. What I have said is that I`m likely going to stay out of incumbent Republican primaries. I haven`t put that in concrete. But it is I`m likely going to stay out of incumbent Republican primaries.

ALLEN: And why aren`t you putting it in concrete?

CRUZ: Because things can change in politics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: So the prospect of Ted Cruz stirring up trouble for his own colleagues in primaries this year in helping Tea Party candidates who might actually give Democrats a fighting chance isn`t exactly dead. And as we said the Tea Party has its sights set on several incumbent Republican senators this year. Take, for example, Kansas Senator Pat Roberts. The 77-year-old was first elected to Congress in the Reagan revolution of 1980. And he moved up to the Senate a decade and a half later where he`s now been for the last 17 years. And Roberts is now battling back from allegations that he has lost touch with Kansas, literally. "The New York Times" reported last month that his voting address in the state is on a country club golf course that belongs to two longtime supporters and donors who he stays with when he`s in the state. He did renew his driver`s license with the donors` golf course and listed it as his home address. But the office has pointed out that he does own a house in Kansas, except he can`t live there because he rents it out. Remember, the Tea Party movement isn`t just driven by ideology. It`s also fueled by a distaste for beltway insiderdom and Roberts` residency issue is exactly the kind of symbolic issue that can add gasoline to the Tea Party`s fire.

The good news for Roberts is that from now he`s actually being overshadowed by his Tea Party opponent, a doctor named Milton Wolf who posted x-rays of dead patients to his Facebook page with humorous comments. Republicans also pulled of a coup in Colorado this week when Ken Buck, the Tea Party candidate who blew a very winnable Senate race for the GOP in 2010 and who was set to challenge Democratic senator Mark Udall this year suddenly backed out of that race deferring instead to Congressman Cory Gardner. Since Gardner lacks Buck`s baggage, this is a significant upgrade for the GOP. And with Gardner running for the Senate, Buck will now seek his House seat. This is the kind of pragmatic deal the GOP establishment was unable to strike with the Tea Party these past few years. And Republicans need a net gain of six seats if they`re going to win back the Senate and, remember, they are playing on very friendly turf this year. Seven Democratic held seats are up for re-election in states that Mitt Romney won in 2012. There`s a lot of ripe targets for the GOP. Of course, they`ve been in this position before only to be thwarted by the Tea Party. So, the same thing happened this fall. Here to discuss what might happen in these Republican primaries this year, we have Kellyanne Conway, a Republican strategist and president of the firm the Polling Company and still with us we have Tommy Vietor, a former White House staffer in the Obama administration, and now with the political consulting firm Fenway Strategies. Ana Marie Cox, political columnist at "The Guardian" and Lynn Sweet, Washington bureau chief at "The Chicago Sun Times."

Kelly, you know, I`ll start with you because I have to say your party pulled off something this week that I didn`t necessarily think it was capable of and that made me think Republicans have a better chance than I previously thought of winning back the Senate. And that`s what we are talking about in Colorado this week. We watched in 2010 as Ken Buck made politically inflammatory comments that probably cost him a very winnable Senate race for his party, it`s one of the reasons that Republicans failed to take back the Senate in 2010 and he got out of the race this week.

The Republican establishment got him out of the race, put in a more electable candidate and is now in a better position to win that seat than they were with Ken Buck as a candidate. Is that an isolated example or do you think that is a sign that the Republican Party and the Tea Party are from a pragmatic election standpoint getting their act together for 2014?

KELLYANNE CONWAY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, and definitely their act together, and all of that is basically a footnote to what the real issue will be in Colorado and elsewhere this year, Steve, which is can an incumbent senator like Senator Udall defend his position on Obamacare enough to really win re-election? Even his legislative director was caught emailing the insurance, the officials - insurance officials in Colorado saying, please, if you`re not going to change these numbers we are going to have to push back on them. The numbers being how many Coloradans have actually had their plans canceled, that`s up to 355,000 according to nonpartisan media sources. Now, so, the situation in Colorado is really about Senator Udall, the way it is about Senator Landrieu in Louisiana and Begich in Alaska, Pryor in Arkansas, Hagan in North Carolina. The list goes on. Their difficulty is primarily they are going to have to defend against any of these Republican or Tea Party Republican candidates for their position on Obamacare and other things. We say Obamacare and they are going to say Obama who? And Senator Udall had some really strong comments recently in Politico about maybe not wanting to campaign with Senator Obama in his state of Colorado.

KORNACKI: The President - President Obama. But now, but what you`re saying I get. Republicans - it is almost, it`s a carbon copy of 2010. Republicans want to run against Obamacare and in some ways they had a lot of success in 2010 except they didn`t have as much success as they should have had because they nominated candidates like Christine O`Donnell in Delaware, Sharron Angle in Nevada. Here is one that I just saw that was main news this weekend. Now, in Mississippi Thad Cochran, longtime Republican senator, I think we can all agree if Thad Cochran is nominated by the Republicans in Mississippi, he is likely to get re-elected. Here is what he had to say about the Tea Party recently, though.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. THAD COCHRAN (R) MISSISSIPPI: The Tea Party, you know, is something I don`t really know a lot about. And it`s a free country. We have open opportunities for people to participate in the election process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: I mean, so Thad Cochran now, and he is a credible Tea Party challenger, state Senator from Mississippi who`s running against him and then we just got the news the other day, I think to put this up in the screen, former Democratic congressman, conservative Democratic Congressman Travis Childers has decided he is going to run for the senate in Mississippi. So, you can see this - at least the framework of the setup here. If McDaniel beats Cochran in the primary, says some kind of crazy things, then the Democrats have a credible candidate and this could become of one those .

CONWAY: A pro-life, pro-gun candidate, we should say, in the Democrat. How did he slip in?

KORNACKI: The model in North Dakota no matter what - in Indiana.

ANA MARIE COX, THE GUARDIAN: Well, no matter what happens, I personally think that depending on this Tea Party and depending on running against Obamacare is unsustainable. Like demographically unsustainable. And, also, sort of policy unsustainable because Obamacare will not get repealed. It will turn out people won`t die, you know. And so it will be hard to run against once it`s become a part of people`s everyday lives. And disaster doesn`t happen.

(CROSSTALK)

COX: But I was going to say, I don`t think so, but this is unsustainable for them. And they have, I`ll give them this, they have successfully pushed the entire debate to the right. They have moved, you know, the Democratic Party to the moderate side. And I want to say, the only this is sustainable for them, because the Democrats are against them in Texas. Texas will be a majority Hispanic in 2020. And I don`t think the Tea Party can be successful there. But if they succeed in repealing voting rights over and over again, if they succeed in voter I.D. laws, and the other kinds of laws that restrict Democratic voting, that`s the only way that they can keep this momentum that was started by the Tea Party.

LYNN SWEET, CHICAGO SUN TIMES: Let me point out, though, that this is a two-step process. So, the primaries come first where, you know, this isn`t washed up into an election, and where Obamacare is a potent issue for Republicans is that it`s still unfolding, March 31 is the first signup deadline and the penalty. So the biggest issue I think right now, and you mentioned it, Kellyanne, is not the people who have signed up, but the people who even support Obamacare who had their policies canceled. I think we`ve talked about this in the past. People who believed the promise nothing would change and it takes time to sort out getting new policies. You may not be happy with it. You may have a better deal. You may not. That`s a whole potential army of people who still might not have stuff settled. They might not have been happy with the new doctor if they had to switch. All this takes place during -- as these primaries start.

KORNACKI: And that`s - and you say .

SWEET: And that`s, you know - so we have to get through that and then you see how bad that impacts because in the state where you have a Tea Party candidate they have more potential to leverage that even if the senator voted against Obamacare every time.

KORNACKI: That`s .

(CROSSTALK)

KORNACKI: We have to get through the Republican primaries, I think to start measuring what the impact of Obamacare in the fall will be.

SWEET: And it`s still in the playwright.

KORNACKI: Yeah, so I want to talk a little bit more about those primaries -- get Tommy in as soon as we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: So, Tommy, Pat Roberts in Kansas, Thad Cochran in Mississippi, Mitch McConnell facing a primary challenge in Kentucky, in Georgia, there is an open seat, but there is a possibility at the state that`s trending Democratic a little bit and there`s a possibility of a far right candidate winning there. Are you confident as a Democrat that what happened in 2010 and what happened in 2012 where the Republicans get all tripped up in these primaries, do you think that`s going to happen again this year?

VIETOR: Good question. I love Pat Roberts, you know, putting his house on (INAUDIBLE) and staying at the country club apparently. But I remember talking to David Plouffe years and years ago about this math this year. You know, so we`ve always had our eye on how challenging this would be. I think the problem for Republicans is their platform is we`re going to take away your health care coverage. Right? You`re going to have -- there is no Obamacare, there`s nothing. The alternative is nothing. And so, I think the best thing for Democrats is more Ted Cruz, more Tea Party candidates out there in the 15 percent of the country that support them. I hope he gets involved in every single primary.

(LAUGHTER)

VIETOR: I want to see his smug face on every newspaper.

SWEET: It sounds like you`re going to be a donor.

KORNACKI: Yeah. And Kellyanne, you see - we played the clip from him. Do you think -- do you want Ted Cruz getting involved in the primaries? Do you think he`s going to get involved?

CONWAY: He hasn`t endorsed anyone. All he said is that he promotes groups that promote liberty and conservative candidates. But he hasn`t endorsed anybody. There were no names in that letter.

KORNACKI: No, but he sounded like ..

CONWAY: That`s for the context. You see, you want to talk about Christine O`Donnell, who else you put - Sharron Angle. Let`s talk about the other pictures you can have there. Deb Fisher, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz - some significant victories against the establishment. Ted is a great example of somebody who won not once, but twice against the establishment all in a matter of months because there was a run-off against the sitting lieutenant governor David Dewhurst.

KORNACKI: But you see, winning in the Republican primary in a red state is one thing, it`s when you get to these potentially politically competitive states .

CONWAY: Telling us that - Telling us that because Hispanics are going to be a majority in 2020, Republicans will never win again. In Texas when Ted Cruz .

(CROSSTALK)

COX: That was my point. I think it`s unsustainable.

CONWAY: It`s very simple to me. When you`re running as an incumbent this year, you`re running in the sixth year of Obama - of President Obama, you know, and it`s not just Obamacare, it`s also that when you try to defend the success of the stimulus five years later, most of America wasn`t buying it. The economists may say one thing. The demographers may say the other. Most of the country doesn`t think that that worked for them. Most of the country still thinks the economy .

KORNACKI: All right. Well, that`s -- we are way out of time. So, the general election message, there`s still the question of .

CONWAY: All run as Republicans.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

CONWAY: All run as Republicans.

KORNACKI: It didn`t work out too well for Christine O`Donnell in 2010.

CONWAY: Oh, my god.

KORNACKI: Anyway, I want to thank Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway and consultant Tommy Vietor. I`m sorry we didn`t have more time there. They are literally shouting in my ear to get out of this.

(LAUGHTER)

KORNACKI: Up next, as promised, our exclusive report out on where the Chris Christie investigation is heading next. You don`t want to miss it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: We have some exclusive news to report to you about an action scheduled to be taken tomorrow against one of Governor Chris Christie`s top political appointees, a man whose name looms large over the George Washington Bridge lane closure scandal. The New Jersey Working Families Alliance to Coalition of Progressive Activists tells us that tomorrow, Monday, they will be filing a formal complaint with the New Jersey state ethics commission against Port Authority Chairman David Samson, alleging various conflicts of interest involving instances where his public duties at the Port Authority have overlapped with his private interests as a partner of the law firm Wolff & Samson.

That law firm, which David Samson founded more than 40 years ago does millions of dollars in public contracts for the state of New Jersey each year. It`s a number that has exploded since Christie became the governor. The firm also serves private clients who also do business in the state. Wolff & Samson has grown substantially in the year since Chris Christie has taken office. The firm has come under greater and greater scrutiny since early last month when the emails came to light indicating that Bill Baroni and David Wildstein had enlisted Samson in the George Washington Bridge scandal to, quote, "help us retaliate" when the Port Authority`s executive director Pat Foye reopened the lanes closed in Fort Lee. Often, Samson also represented the developers seeking to win approval from Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer to build on a plot of land in north Hoboken, a story we reported first on this show back in January. That development project benefited from a Port Authority funded study. And Mayor Zimmer has accused high ranking members of the Christie administration of linking her city`s level of Sandy aid to her approval of the project, an assertion the officials strenuously denied.

In documents we showed you, city officials noted David Samson`s interest in the project as his law firm`s representative pressed to arrange conversations between Samson and city officials about the development project. Samson was even personally copied on some of those emails. But the allegations within the formal complaint that will be filed tomorrow shared with us exclusively this morning have to deal with other potential conflicts that have also come to light in the past few weeks. One was recently reported by Shawn Boburg in "The Bergen Record." It`s the story of how New Jersey transit retained Wolff & Samson for up to $1.5 million for advice on how to maximize profits at its commuter park and ride lots, dozens of them in the state. New Jersey transit leases those lots from the Port Authority for $900,000 a year. And then they make their money back by charging the commuters who park there $9.50 a day. Well, they wanted to figure out how to make more, so they hired David Samson`s law firm, the law firm of the guy who chairs the Port Authority that leases the lots to New Jersey transit to help them do that. And they reached a deal in February 2012 to slash the annual lease rate that N.J. transit pays the Port Authority from $900,000 to $1 for the next 49 years. For half a century basically. That is the deal that David Samson`s law firm helped to negotiate. And David Samson himself voted in favor of in February 2012 with the Port Authority. Commuting taxpayers still pay to park there. The state gets basically nothing in terms of rent. And Wolff & Samson gets its million and a half dollar fee.

Now, after the "Bergen Record" broke that story, Samson retroactively recused himself from that vote. The roll call, the vote was changed two years later to make it look like he had abstained. The Port Authority is now reconsidering the terms of that lease altogether. So, that is alleged conflict of interests number one. The complaint being filed tomorrow also takes issue with Samson`s public comments in the legend involvement in the Port Authority`s takeover of the Atlantic City Airport. Something that would seem to be far outside the normal scope of the agency`s operations. The airport is small. When the deal was struck in 2013, it had just 29 flights a day. And his first month as Port Authority chairman, back in March 2011, Samson publicly commented in favor of a takeover. Quote, "I think the benefits would be obvious," he said. It is something that obviously will continue to be looked at by the Port Authority staff.

Samson wasn`t the only powerful figure advocating the takeover. But what wasn`t widely known then and what came to light in a recent report is WNYC report, is that Wolff & Samson also represented the South Jersey Transportation Authority, which operated the money losing airport. So if the deal went through the Port Authority, it would be taking this money pit of an airport off their hands. WNYC further reported that in the summer of 2012 a $3 million proposal to study the airport takeover came before the Port Authority board. While Samson did recuse himself from that vote, he remained in the room while the study was approved by his colleagues on a voice vote. When the study was done, a vote to formally take over the airport was held. Samson again recused himself and the takeover passed unanimously. A complaint that will be filed tomorrow argues that Samson`s recusal should have been absolute and the public comments he made amount to a violation of the ethics code. So that`s potential conflict of interest number two. The third has to do with Samson`s vote to approve more than $250 million to rebuild the rundown path commuter rail station in Harrison, New Jersey. That`s just outside of Newark.

And as "The Bergen Record" reported in January, Samson did not recuse himself from that vote even though Wolff & Samson had just been retained by a builder who was proposing to convert a warehouse near the station in the hundreds of luxury apartments. It was further reported by WNYC that Wolff & Samson represented another client with property near that past station and the client wanted to convert that property into office towers. So, that is alleged potential conflict of interest number three in the complaint. And finally, the complaint addresses how as "The Star Ledger" reported last week Wolff & Samson represents the owner of a construction firm on the receiving end of millions of dollars in the work from the Port Authority, work that was approved by David Samson. The most recent of those contracts was awarded in January.

Through a spokesperson chairman Samson declined a request for comment, an invitation to appear on a program about these alleged conflicts of interest. Taking the complaint at face value there seems to be a lot for the state ethics commission to look into here, but there`s also a twist because the ethics commission that will consider this complaint has been changed in a basic and controversial way by the Christie administration. To explain this, you have to understand how that commission works. It has seven members, four public members, two of them Democrats and two of them Republicans, and three who are political appointees from the executive branch. The governor appoints all the members and designates a chairman and a vice chairman. But here`s the key. The person who runs things day-to-day for the ethics commission, the full-time executive director who heads up a team of professionals to conduct preliminary investigations, that person used to be chosen by the commissioners themselves. This is what Christie changed. He did not leave it to the commissioners to find their own executive director. Instead, his appointments office conducted the search and made a recommendation, which brings us to five weeks ago when the news website NJspotlight learned that the commission had approved a new executive director. Her name is Susana Guerrero. She began her legal career at the law firm of Christie`s closest adviser Bill Palatucci, even overlapping with the future governor there for four months. Just before Christie left to become the U.S. attorney in January of 2002. Guerrero stayed at the Palatucci firm for eight years, and when Christie became governor she spent most of the three years of the administration working as the governor`s associate counsel. She left that position in 2012 to go serve in the state education department.

In the "NJ Spotlight" article former members of the ethics commission disagreed with the appointment. As did former Governor Richard Codey in an interview with "The Star Ledger." Quote, "You want somebody who clearly on paper has no conflicts. And it would appear that she does, in fact, have those. She may be passing judgment, being involved in cases involving obviously the administration. It would taint, to some degree, whatever was done," that`s what former governor Richard Codey said. "How do you recuse yourself in the administration that you used to serve in?" he asked. "She shouldn`t have been put in that position. Nothing against her. I don`t know her. I have no reason to think she`s anything, but honest, but the process is now somewhat tainted, clearly." "Star Ledger" columnist Tom Moran put it this way. "Ask yourself, If Christie wanted a robust and independent watchdog to lift the bar on ethics, would he appoint someone who for years was part of the very team she is supposed to now police?" But that is who, as of right now, will be heading up the initial review of the ethics complaint against David Samson, one of Christie`s top political allies, a complaint that will be filed tomorrow.

We asked the state ethics commission if it can effectively investigate members of the governor`s administration when the person overseeing the investigation has longtime ties to the governor and members of his staff. The ethics commission responded by listing its procedures, quote, "when an allegation is received by the state ethics commission, the staff reviews it to determine whether the alleged conflict falls within the jurisdiction of the commission. Any staff member, including the executive director, who has a conflict of interest regarding a matter must recuse from any involvement in that particular matter in accordance with commission regulations." The procedures go on to say that after conducting an investigation, the staff submits a written report, which it presents to the commission and then the commission votes on whether a violation exists. Quote, "The ultimate decision as to whether a complaint on an allegation will be issued is solely that of the commissioners." For their part the governor`s office affirmed an earlier statement about its new executive director saying, quote, "Ms. Guerrero is widely respected across state government as a legal professional and public servant. She was not only nominated by a Democrat, but received a unanimous vote of approval by the bipartisan membership of the ethics commission."

The governor himself spoke up for David Samson earlier this week after he came under fire from Governor Andrew Cuomo`s top appointee at the Port Authority. In a meeting with "the New York Daily News" editorial board on Tuesday, Patrick Foye, the Port`s executive director who ordered the end of the Fort Lee lane closures, he said that Samson lacks "the moral authority to stay on the job." Governor Christie tackled that contention directly in his "Ask the Governor" radio show on Wednesday night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your top Port Authority appointee, David Samson, was the target of some criticism by the P.A.`s executive director Patrick Foye. Foye was asked by "the New York Daily News" if Samson had the moral authority to lead the agency and he flat-out said no. But then wouldn`t elaborate on it any further. Do you still stand by Samson as your appointee?

KORNACKI: That`s the governor`s opinion, but soon it will be up to the state ethics commission to weigh in when this new complaint is filed. And here to discuss it with us is the executive director of the New Jersey Working Families Alliance, Analilia Mejia. Analilia, thank you for joining us this morning.

ANALILIA MEJIA, NJ WORKING FAMILIES ALLIANCE: Thank you.

KORNACKI: So, I guess that the first question I have is a basic one. It`s about the standing of the state ethics commission and David Samson`s role. He chairs the Port Authority, which is a bi-state agency, and this is the ethics commission in New Jersey agency. Are you sure that the regulations of New Jersey apply - to the head of bi-state agency?

MEJIA: Absolutely. Actually the conflict of interest laws in New Jersey specifically state that individuals or officials like David Samson who are in these bi-state agencies still have to comply with New Jersey conflict of interest laws, so it speaks clearly to someone like David Samson.

KORNACKI: OK, now tell us about what the ethics commission is empowered to do. You take this case before them. We went through the complaints that you have. If the ethics commission were to agree with you, what would happen to David Samson?

MEJIA: So there`s many things that the commission can do. They could, for example, fine him up to $10,000. They could impose an imprisonment up to six months. And they could bar him from public office for up to five years. For someone like David Samson who has been in the middle of every, it seems like, every single Chris Christie scandal from Bridgegate to this Harrison question it would be significant that he`s barred from being able to hold public office.

KORNACKI: And what do we know about the track record of the state ethics commission? I mean is this generally an aggressive watchdog? Does this have a track record of issuing harsh penalties, of the kinds of punishments you`re describing of sort of meeting those out, or is this something where sort of investigations go to die? What`s the reputation?

MEJIA: So I think the intention of Governor Codey when he created this commission was to ensure that there was this very fair agency to overlook and ensure that the public trust wasn`t being violated. I think that it has in its authority the ability to do exactly what we`ve laid out, investigate, and if found -- if they find that he is in violation, they should most certainly impose all the penalties that they see fit. I think that you are right when you lay out that the deck has been stacked by Chris Christie, unlike any other governor he`s actually injected himself in the determination of who the executive --

KORNACKI: How confident are you that you are going to get a fair hearing here?

MEJIA: So, I think the way that we ensure that we get a fair hearing is that we air the fact that these violations, what we allege are violations, are egregious enough that should be investigated, that the media pay attention to the fact that this is going on, that business as usual isn`t allowed to continue in in New Jersey, that legislators, for example, ensure that these allegations or this complaint is actually given full attention. Unfortunately, the ethics commission doesn`t have a time line, an imposed time line that they have to address these issues. But I mean it`s very clear when the individual who makes the decision as to a $256 million renovation project is the same guy or the same lawyer who is representing the interests of those who are going to benefit from that decision, that it seems to me that is a very clear conflict of interest and a violation of the public trust.

KORNACKI: And just, and finally, we have - we know that there`s the state legislative committee that bipartisan state legislative committee that is looking into, you know, Bridgegate and they`ve pulled out all of these subpoenas. We know the U.S. attorney is looking at - we`re not exactly sure what the U.S. attorney is looking at. We know the U.S. attorney is involved. Are you -- is the fact that you`re doing this a statement on your part, in part, that you don`t think either of those avenues is going to get to the conflicts that you see David Samson is guilty of? Do you feel -- are you not confident that those investigations are going to take this where you want it to go?

MEJIA: So, in fact, we are confident that -- and we`re very happy that all of these different instances and scandals are being looked at both by the state attorney as well as the legislature. We think that the instances that we`re pointing to are different from what`s been discussed or looked at by both parties. We think that it`s very important to pay attention to just what`s coming out in the media. We - David Samson is one of the most powerful individuals in New Jersey. He has or is a partner of one of the most powerful law firms in New Jersey. He has access in a way that regular New Jerseyans do not have. We are just calling the question that there are at least four very clear instances that we think he is in violation. We just want to point these out and we`re calling the question to everyone in New Jersey including the governor who, as you said, he doubled down on David Samson.

KORNACKI: Because he needs to defend David Samson.

MEJIA: And how you defend someone who -- the conflict of interest laws say that it`s not just being in one way making decisions that will financially or can influence or benefit your friends or yourself, but just the appearance of impropriety. Is it not -- does it not appear that there is impropriety when you have, again, an individual making a decision to lower rent for his client from almost a million dollars to $1? This is public money.

KORNACKI: All right. Well, let`s see what happens. You`re filing the complaint tomorrow. We will keep an eye on what happens with it.

MEJIA: Please do.

KORNACKI: I want to thank Analilia Mejia with the New Jersey Working Families Alliance for coming on today. And we will be joined by two members of the state legislature and a longtime reporter for New Jersey to talk about this and the rest of the developments this week coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A man in New Jersey has spent the past 30 days in a pay it forward campaign by doing kind deeds for random strangers such as paying for gas and giving out subway fare, said the man, so we good?

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: That`s "Saturday Night Live" having a little fun at Governor Christie`s expense. We were talking before the break about a complaint of possible conflicts interests involving Port Authority chairman and longtime Christie ally Davis Samson and also other possible conflicts. The state ethics commission will investigate the complaint that will be filed tomorrow. Well, here to discuss this are: Democratic State Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson-Coleman who is also now a candidate for Congress and was until this week a member of the investigative super committee. We`ll explain that in a minute. Republican State Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll, a current of the Investigative Super Committee. And Brian Thompson, New Jersey reporter for WNBC, getting to be a regular on this show.

BRIAN THOMPSON, WNBC REPORTER: But not a member of the .

KORNACKI: Not - What if there`s a slot. Maybe you can fill it. I don`t know. But Assemblyman, I`ll start with you. In that segment we just had outlining the New Jersey Working Families Alliance filing a complaint to the state ethics commission against David Samson. You read the news and the last few months these possible conflicts of interest that have come out, what is your reaction to the complaint that`s being filed and to the revelations you`ve seen about David Samson?

MICHAEL PATRICK CARROLL, (R) NJ ASSEMBLYMAN: (INAUDIBLE) No, I`m not going to tell you exactly how I feel about it but, again, as you know with respect to my philosophy with John Wisniewski and such I`ve often felt that the Port Authority was a nest that needs to be cleaned out. I`m not sure I agree with your analysis or the previous witnesses` analysis of the Port Authority/New Jersey transit deal because, yes, his client made out well, but his client is New Jersey transit, which means the commuters, at least in theory, are going to make out well.

KORNACKI: The bus commuters.

CARROLL: Or train commuters.

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN (D) NJ ASSEMBLYWOMAN: His law firm made out well.

CARROLL: But I will say - and another thing about this, is I understand, I may be wrong about this, but I believe that Jim McGreevey appointed Mr. Samson to an important role at some point.

KORNACKI: David Samson has friends on both sides of the aisle. That`s certainly a part of the story.

CARROLL: Jim McGreevey didn`t pick out people - again, he`s a bipartisan sort of a guy. That said .

KORNACKI: Jim McGreevey not the paragon of ethics in New Jersey.

CARROLL: Well, I don`t remember him being investigated by a legislative committee, though. You know, come back to this idea of an ethical problem, this presents what we in the legislature sometimes like to call a Marcy Hochman (ph) moment, she`s our legislative ethics council. And the idea is, again, you are not supposed to do anything that even remotely benefits you. If we`re a part-time legislator, and we are, you know, we cannot go down there and vote on a bill if this is going to directly benefit one of our clients. I`m not going to comment on the particulars of those cases because it`s - I don`t see all the facts, but until such time -- it just strikes me that, again, when you`re in that position, your law firm is that closely related to it, there are certainly questions that need to be addressed. I`m sure that he will address them.

KORNACKI: It`s almost - given just what his law firm does and what the Port Authority does, it`s just - the overlap seems almost inevitable and then there`s just a question of how you deal with it. Assemblywoman, so the news you made on Friday was that you had been a member of this legislative investigative committee I think on our air, on MSNBC`s air on Thursday you said that Governor Christie ought to consider resigning. This was in the wake of the new text messages, text messages. You took a little flak for that. And Friday you said, well, that`s it. I would rather speak my mind than be on this committee. Can you just explain a little bit about your decision?

WATSON COLEMAN: Well, I think that my position with regard to how bad the Christie administration has been for the people of New Jersey, has been consistent from the beginning. And it`s been related to his policies, how they`ve impacted the poor, women, working families, and how they`ve just not advanced our standing economically. It`s been consistent. I`m getting to the point, I`ve go gotten to the point, I was at the point, where every time I would read a newspaper article, it was another member of his either staff or a person who has a job because of him was embroiled in some abuse of power or the discussion of possibly abusing the power. New Jersey deserves better. And so, I said what I believed, I didn`t say it as a member of the committee. I didn`t say it as a result of the internal discussions with regard to the investigation. I said it as a legislator who has watched this administration erode all of the progress we`ve done on behalf of women, working class families, poor families, access to health care. You name it, he`s been on the other side of it.

And now we had a conversation that we obviously privy to where people at a very high level in the Port Authority were making fun of a rabbi. A, do you think we can put some traffic jam in front of his house? Well, no, but maybe we could delay flights to Tel Aviv. Six-figure people appointed at high levels because of their relationship with the governor who are saying things in a manner some would say is joking. I say, no, I said it could have been a promise of what they would have done. Because we`ve already seen that they have no bounds.

KORNACKI: I`ve always - you know, I would - I had to say, now, I`ve always put my little conflict of interest on the table here that I worked for David Wildstein for a number of years and I read this particular exchange that came out this week as a joking exchange that probably doesn`t have any real relevance to the lane closures. But Brian, I`m curious to get your take. I mean the assemblywoman just sort of outlined it where there`s a rabbi, a political active rabbi who - I think we have it up on the screen right there, where David Wildstein says he`s officially pissed me off, then, you know, clearly we cannot cause traffic problems in front of his house. Can we? While seeing jokes, "Flights to Tel Aviv all mysteriously delayed. Perfect. What was your take and what we learned this week?

THOMPSON: You know, it shows a pattern of those two operators, for sure. What we don`t know is, which the committee is looking at, the U.S. attorney is looking at, is how extensive it was. I have to make this point, though. I was talking to a well-known lawyer, I`ve talked to him before about this, Joe Hayden (ph) here in New Jersey. And he made the point to me, Brian, it`s like - what Governor Christie has to worry about through all of this, from stuff like that that you just read to everything else, is his own investigation of himself being led by Randy Maestro who was Giuliani`s aide when Giuliani was mayor of New York City. He says two things that Christie has got to worry about. One, that it will be a very weak report, a slap on the wrist while the committee or the U.S. attorney may come up with something else or, two, what happens to Christie if it`s a very strong report that his own investigation comes up with and finds much more wrong with that office than just Bridget Kelly and the appointees .

KORNACKI: Very quickly, in your reporting, have you gotten any sense what the timetable is for this Christie internal report? Have they given any indication?

THOMPSON: That`s - No, they have not given any indication. And the problem is, of course, that they`re running into some roadblocks. They can`t interview Sokolich, the Mayor of Fort Lee. They can`t interview Zimmerman (ph), the mayor of Hoboken. They probably won`t be able to interview Bridget Kelly. They probably won`t be able to interview Baroni and Wildstein. So then you have got to ask, well, who can they interview? Well, they can interview people on the staff now. But what are they going to tell them?

KORNACKI: It just reminds me, Christie had that opportunity to interview Bridget Kelly before he fired her. He could have asked her a simple question of why. He didn`t do it then. Anyway, the abbreviated panel. And I want to thank you for coming in. Democratic State Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson-Coleman, Republican State Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll and WNBC`s Brian Thompson.

This week Michelle Obama`s signature initiative "Let`s Move" turned four. She wasn`t afraid to use the anniversary to unveil tough new regulations on the food industry. That story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: So, this is the part of the show I have decided to do my Andy Rooney impersonation. Because you know what really drives me crazy? Those nutrition labels on the back of everything you buy at the grocery store and in particular the serving sizes. All of that information about fat and cholesterol and calories, it`s all based on what the manufacturer deems to be one serving of its product. But the manufacturer`s idea of one serving is almost always ridiculous. Look at this. This is a bag of - and we have to call them, Aquatic chips cheese flavored crackers. Now if I`m hungry, I could polish this off in about three minutes. And I`d better eat it all in one sitting because there`s no way to close the bag once you`ve ripped it open. I mean if you open your aquatic cheese things, OK, I`ve had my, you know, one serving, anyway, it`s supposed to be 140 calories, eight percent of your daily fat. Then you see this. Then you look at the nutrition label, they actually say there are 2 1/2 servings in this tiny, unresealable package. So, it`s not 140 calories I`m eating, it`s 350. It`s not eight percent of my daily fat intake, it`s 20. And you see this everywhere. This bottle of iced tea. OK. 2 1/2 serving in here. This bag of breakfast toaster pastries, show you this. They come two in a package, right? Who is going to open this and only eat one? OK, but according to the label this is two separate servings. So show me once you`ve torn open this flimsy crinkly (ph) wrapper, you have one serving of it, what are you supposed to do with the second one if you`re only having that one serving? And on and on it like this as it goes. I mean you have marble pound cake right here. Unresealable bag, two servings. This is sneaky? It`s not helpful. It`s why I stopped reading nutrition labels long ago. It`s also why I`m excited about something that first lady Michelle Obama announced this week. And we`re going to talk about it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: First lady Michelle Obama`s Let`s Move campaign turned four this week. And her office celebrated the milestone with a bang. For years now the first lady has encouraged families to exercise and eat healthy through her self-styled fun loving campaign. She has performed "The Evolution of Mom Dancing" with Jimmy Fallon, now the host of "The Tonight Show." She has bested talk show host Ellen DeGeneres in a push-up competition, and she`s planted veggies with local school kids in the White House garden. This week she got her husband and vice president Joe Biden to take a jog around the White House in a new "Let`s Move" video, and she held a focus group of sorts with school kids and a celebrity guest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHELLE OBAMA: Tell me what kind of music do you like to dance to?

UNIDENTIFIED BOY: Body moving.

MICHELLE OBAMA: Body moving?

UNIDENTIFIED BOY: Body moving, body moving

MICHELLE OBAMA: This is good. Body moving.

WILL FERRELL: D.J., D. J., D. J.

(LAUGHTER)

FERRELL: So, his diet cola, is that a vegetable?

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFEID BOY: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: This is actually news to me, I thought diet cola was a vegetable, at least in my diet. Anyway, this week on Thursday Michelle Obama used the family friendly brand she has built to unveil the Obama administration`s proposed new food and drug administration regulations that would overhaul nutrition labels for the first time in more than two decades. And yes, those annoying serving size labels would change, too, something you might know I would be very excited about. The new guidelines the first lady is advocating would with have real regulatory teeth. They would affect 700,000 products and cost food manufacturers $2 billion. That`s not all. Two days earlier Michelle Obama was in the same room in the East Wing to announce new Agriculture Department regulations that would eviscerate junk food marketing in schools. That event Michelle Obama challenged her detractors head on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHELLE OBAMA: So, if there is anyone out there who was thinking to themselves, in a few years this lady will be gone and this "Let`s Move" thing will finally be over, so we can go back to business as usual. If you know anyone out there who might be thinking that way, you might want to remind them that I didn`t create this issue and I`m not the one who is truly driving it forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: So while President Obama works on hammering out his presidential legacy in hick sixth year in office, it seems Michelle Obama is doing very much the same thing. And it appears her efforts so far have been working. This week she renewed her push for programs promoting healthier families. The Centers for Disease Control released a study that showed obesity among two to five-year-olds has made a sharp decline in the last decade. So how will the first lady use the capital she`s built up with her Let`s Move campaign in her remaining years in the White House? And is she changing the office for future first ladies and maybe first gentlemen? Well, back at the table we have Ana Marie Cox of "Guardian," Lynn Sweet from "The Chicago Sun Times," MSNBC contributor Goldie Taylor, a columnist with the Grio.com and chef, food, activist and host of "Top Chef" Tom Colicchio who has traveled and worked with the first lady as part of her let`s move campaign. And Tom, I guess I`ll start with you because we put some of the price tag out there, some of the money that`s at stake for the food industry in terms of what the first lady is now proposing, what she is talking about this week. When we think of the issues that first ladies in the past have latched on to historically, they haven`t tended to put the first lady on a collision course with the big industry and big money this way. Can you tell us, or give us a sense of what she`s up against here?

TOM COLICCHIO, CHEF & FOOD ACTIVIST: Well, and she`s up against a lot. I like the way she actually sort of transitioned from sort of Let`s Move where it was about getting kids active and then just kind of moved more towards nutrition, but really has taken on more of the politics in a small sense. This is really a Trojan horse to combat poverty, because if you look at school lunch, one thing that was not mentioned was that this actually increases school lunch, free school lunch, an additional 22,000 schools are eligible for free lunch, universal free lunch, and it will affect 9 million children. Often these kids, they go to school and breakfast and lunch is the only meal they receive. And so this is really, is initiative to combat poverty and she`s doing it in a way where she`s able to do it as a first lady. She`s not actually tackling policy, but she is actually sort of changing the will around it.

KORNACKI: But when you were talking about the food industry, that`s a real consideration here, though, isn`t it?

COLICCHIO: Sure. You know, if you look at the labeling, I think it`s a good first step. And if you look, also, at advertising, a good first step. But there are ways around it. The advertising, food advertising, they`ll advertise around schools. So you`ll see more advertising on kiosks, phone kiosks, you`ll see billboards and things like that. They`ll move some money into a different place. What we really need to do is actually look at this through sort of tax policy. And I don`t think we need to tax it on a consumer level. I think that regressive tax doesn`t work. I think what we need to do is look at if you`re going to advertise junk food that should not be deducted, you shouldn`t use it as deductible, and that`s one way to actually affect this. And then perhaps those food companies will actually spend their advertising dollars on some of the healthier foods that`s in their portfolio.

COX: I have just a point I want to make. I think this has been one of the most successful first lady movements that we`ve ever seen, but I think that`s in part because it`s hard to be against, right? But most first lady movements are, but also in part she has been able to get a lot of corporate buy-in on this. I mean corporations have been relatively friendly to them because they can make money off of it. She`s not telling them, no, you can`t sell stuff. You know, they are starting to market around other things and I wonder if that`s going to mean it`s sustainable or not.

SWEET: May I address that?

COX: Yeah.

SWEET: Actually, and people probably don`t know this, but she - when she launched Let`s Move four years ago, she created a nonprofit called Partnership for a Healthier America. That is funded almost entirely by the vast food industry, many facets of it. And what she has done because in the beginning -- Mrs. Obama is pretty militantly cautious. Militantly risk adverse. And when she launched Let`s Move four years ago, it was at a time where she probably would not even have talked against the junk food tax because I believe we talked about it and I believe it came up when she spoke before the grocery manufacturer`s association several years ago and she kind of skirted that. Because oh, my god, that was real policy. You know, she has not gone up to Congress to testify. Some first ladies have and I don`t see that in the cards right now, but the corporations and this partnership will exist when she joked about being gone from office. I think this is what will be the core of her legacy. This is what she will use to transition into her next chapter after the Obamas leave office, but it is -- it is almost 100 percent corporate and charitable foundation funded. The.

KORNACKI: Well, and how generally popular and difficult to disagree with the first lady initiatives are, one thing that has struck me is on the right there`s been a lot of heated criticism of Michelle Obama.

SWEET: Oh, the mama state.

KORNACKI: We have a montage of some of the stuff you`ve been hearing for the last few years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: We`re taking the nanny state to the new level. Michelle Obama is suggesting what you should feed your children.

RUSH LIMBAUGH, THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW: This is Michelle. She knows better than anybody else about healthy foods, because she has a garden. Big whoop.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why would you want to raise your own kids when Michelle Obama will do it for you?

KORNACKI: So I haven`t heard the cardboard and tofu recommendation come from Michelle Obama.

COX: She never said that.

KORNACKI: Goldie, what do you make of it when you hear - I mean we`ve heard a lot of that?

GOLDIE TAYLOR, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you know - I use some cardboard in tofu.

(LAUGHTER)

TAYLOR: But, you know, having worked as a Fortune 500 executive in the food industry specifically, I know that this will not shut down marketing in schools as a channel, but it certainly will challenge the way that those companies move their messages and move their products through that pipeline. But I think what the first lady is doing here, and I think what, you know, maybe some on the right miss, is that they are -- she is moving this poverty issue across a lifetime. If you can solve some of the early childhood illness that happens as an impact of food and food alone, really on the 80/20 food and exercise, if you can solve some of that, then you make for a healthier adult. If you make for a healthier adult, you make for an adult - a better educated adult.

SWEET: But she is not making that argument because she has broken this down into more of a bite-sized chunk. And let`s look at the origins of Let`s Move. It was an anti-childhood obesity drive because it would have been too controversial to go into just an obesity drive for everybody.

TAYLOR: I would have to agree that she has broken it down into bite sized chunks. But if we are smart about this .

SWEET: Good bite sized.

TAYLOR: And good bite sized.

COX: With an occasional French fry.

TAYLOR: Then we will extend this over lifetime ..

(CROSSTALK)

SWEET: But that`s not what she`s doing, though. She`s not making this an all across-the-board thing. She is trying to make it digestible, if I could use that word, so she can keep moving along, getting corporate partners. And that getting any, you know, I`m trying .

(CROSSTALK)

KORNACKI: Tom wants to get in here. I would tell - I want to get you right after this break. We`ll squeeze one in. First thing after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: All right. The suspense is over. Tom, what were you going to say?

TOM COLICCHIO, HOST, "TOP CHEF": You have to understand that hunger and obesity are very, very closely linked. In a sound bite calories are cheap, nutrition is expensive. And so if you are living, you know, low income and you`re spending your food dollars, you are spending them as carefully as possible, you are also buying the cheapest stuff possible. And those products are the products that are, number one, being advertised to kids and they`re inexpensive. And so if you really want to tackle this, we have to look at ad policy. When you have between 2008 and 2014, $20 billion goes into ad policy, 85 percent supports commodity crops. 15 percent goes to meat and dairy. Less than one percent goes to vegetables, or what they call specialty foods. And so if we really want to get people to eat healthier food, we need to attack the policy side of this. You can`t just kind of have - you know, expect your kids to move and that`s it. But I really believe that the first lady is plowing the field for this bigger discussion. So I think you have to sort of understand that idea.

KORNACKI: And where is - you know, Goldie, when you look at -- he`s an interesting -- Siena College Research Institute put up a poll, I guess just this month. They asked people for the greatest first ladies in history.

(LAUGHTER)

KORNACKI: And Eleanor Roosevelt was number one, Abigail Adams, Jacqui Kennedy, Dolly Madison, and then Michelle Obama coming in at number five, Hillary Clinton at number six. Michelle Obama scored particularly high in the categories of being her own woman and value to the president. And it does - when you say value to the president, one thing that strikes me is there`s sort of a synergy between her Let`s Move campaign and the idea of promoting health with the signature achievement of the Obama presidency, which is health care reform. And maybe it`s a reference to something else, but that`s what I read in "value for the president."

TAYLOR: You know, it`s certainly an interesting list, but I think Michelle Obama certainly strikes a balance here. The balance is being her own woman and then living in the shadow of what was the Hillary Clinton era as first lady, where she was part and parcel being the legislating partner of that president. She was -- it was a two-for-one deal and the American public really fully embraced that embodiment of two for one. Michelle Obama has been really the antithesis of that. She has gone for it, simply reading to children and exercising with them in the school yard. She is a bit more activist in some ways, but in some ways, she`s a bit more withdrawn. She`s sort of being the woman that she, I think, really wants to be in this White House. But all within balance, she is absolutely risk averse. But I think she knows where her capital lies and knows where to spend it.

KORNACKI: And that`s interesting, because we play the clip of Hannity and Limbaugh and all the people on the right. We should also point out that Mike Huckabee defended her on this a couple of years ago. And when you look at her overall poll numbers, she has broad popularity. So it hasn`t really sunk in. Is this - has she created a new model for a first lady that`s a little bit more activist than past first ladies, but doesn`t put you into that same mold as Hillary Clinton in the early part of the Clinton years?

COX: You know, it`s funny, we talk about -- the first lady part of the presidency is probably the biggest gamble in any part of the presidency. Because I really think we talk about being a model or something like that. I think each first lady has to sort of recreate, you know, reinvent the wheel for herself. I don`t think we have like a standard model, especially in the age when, you know, Michelle Obama was a more successful person than her husband, if we look at the numbers. She made more money. She had a career that was on her higher trajectory arc, you know, than that of her husband. And I think -- so she brings a different dynamic to the White House. I think the next first lady will bring a different dynamic to the White House. I think that`s probably a good thing. I think it`s good that we see the first lady as an independent partner in this relationship, much like we have at our homes.

KORNACKI: Or we could see, if there`s a first gentleman next, it has to be Bill Clinton, because he`s a vegan now. And maybe he .

(LAUGHTER)

COLICCHIO: But I`m also - I heard this and the first time I heard it was with the first lady, was the first mom. She has young children in the White House and she really is focused on making sure they have a normal life and she`s happy to be first mom. And I think that`s where a lot of these sort of issues are coming into play. She`s not acting as first lady, she`s acting as a mother.

KORNACKI: All right. We`ve got to squeeze one more break in. We`ll be right back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: We are all out of time, unfortunately. So, all I have time for is to thank Goldie Taylor, chef Tom Colicchio, Ana Marie Cox and Lynn Sweet. Thank you for getting up this morning. And we`ll be back next weekend, Saturday and Sunday at 8:00 Eastern time. Stick around, and MHP is next. On today`s MHP, faith, freedom and politics. That bill may have been shut down, but the discrimination remains legal in far too many states. Plus, a return of this week in voter suppression. Don`t go anywhere. "Nerdland" is next.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>